Court Upholds Tamil Nadu's Night Ban On Online Gaming, Cites Loss Of Lives
The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld the Tamil Nadu government's restrictions on the ban from midnight to 5 AM on playing online real money games.
The court, while hearing petitions by online gaming companies to declare as unconstitutional the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games), Regulations 2025 enacted by the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority, upheld the MK Stalin-led government's restrictions, citing that nearly 50 people have died by suicide due to online gaming losses.
The requirement for platforms to implement Aadhaar-based authentication to ensure only adults (18+) can access real-money games was also sustained by a bench of Justices SM Subramanian and K Rajasekar.
They dismissed the pleas filed by various online gaming operators who argued that the state government overstepped its constitutional bounds and that regulation should fall solely under the central government's purview.
"The state government has placed sufficient material on record to demonstrate the existence of a public health crisis arising from online gaming addiction, leading to financial ruin, mental distress, and tragically, loss of life," the court observed in its judgment.
"In light of the specific and grave situation within Tamil Nadu, exemplified by the reported deaths of at least 47 individuals, the state is well within its powers under the Constitution to enact measures to protect its citizens on grounds of public health and public order," the bench added.
The government presented data showing instances of suicides and extreme distress directly linked to massive debts accumulated through losses in online real-money games.
The dismissal is a significant setback for the online gaming companies operating in Tamil Nadu.
The mandatory "blank hours" directly impact user engagement and potential revenue during late-night periods. The Aadhaar-based authentication, while aimed at protecting minors, adds a layer of compliance and potentially affects user acquisition and ease of access.
Representatives of the online gaming industry expressed disappointment with the ruling, reiterating concerns about state overreach and the impact on legitimate businesses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
12 minutes ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Dino Morea summoned by ED in Mithi River Distilling case
Dino Morea is in trouble. The Enforcement Directorate summoned the Bollywood actor. This is regarding the Rs 65 crore Mithi River desilting scam. Raids occurred at his Mumbai home and other locations. His brother Santino is also under investigation. The ED case is based on a Mumbai Police FIR. It alleges irregularities in Mithi River desilting tenders from 2017-2023. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Enforcement Directorate on Saturday summoned Bollywood actor Dino Morea to appear before it next week in the Rs 65 crore Mithi River Desilting scam Thursday, the agency had raided 15 locations, including the actor's home in Bandra (West), Mumbai . The raids covered other premises located in Mumbai in Maharashtra and Kochi in linked to Morea's brother Santino were also raided, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials, contractors and some others, the sources said on Thursday. The investigation is being conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they ED case stems from a Mumbai Police economic offences wing (EOW) FIR filed in May against 13 people, including contractors and civic officials, for an alleged Rs 65.54 crore scam in the tenders awarded from 2017-2023 for desilting of the Mithi river which flows through Mumbai and acts as a stormwater drainage channel for the metro Uddhav Thackeray-led undivided Shiv Sena controlled the cash-rich BMC from 1997 till the party's split in 2022. After the expiry of the general body in 2022, the civic body was controlled by the state government, which was then headed by Eknath was alleged by the police in its complaint that BMC officials tailored the tender for the desilting contract in such a way that it benefited a particular supplier of machinery, and the contractors reportedly generated fraudulent bills for transporting the sludge out of and his brother were questioned by the Mumbai Police EOW in this case last month. The 49-year-old actor has been questioned twice by Morea brothers were questioned by the police about their alleged links with alleged middleman Ketan Kadam, arrested in the case along with another accused, Jai Joshi, apart from some financial transactions made in a company linked to is the second time that the actor has been in the crosshairs of the ED, In 2021, the agency had attached his assets as part of a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged bank fraud case against Gujarat-based pharmaceutical company Sterling Biotech and its plan to desilt the river was planned by the Mumbai civic authorities following the 2005 floods, which brought the city to a grinding halt.
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lakshadweep MP demands rollback of ship fare hike
Muhammed Hamdullah Sayeed, Member of Parliament (MP), has demanded immediate rollback of the hike in ship fare to and from Lakshadweep. 'This steep escalation, particularly the 42.4% hike in bunk class fares, which disproportionately burdens low-income and marginalised residents, appears excessive, arbitrary, and devoid of proportionality in relation to service quality, economic indices, or public justification,' he said in a letter dated June 6 addressed to Praful Patel, Lakshadweep administrator. He alleged that the revision has been imposed without any public consultation, stakeholder engagement, or transparent justification, thereby rendering the process procedurally infirm and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair public administration. The fare hike warranted urgent reconsideration and structured review, he said. The letter stated that the fare revision order fails to disclose any cost analysis, operational expense breakdown, or methodology that would reasonably justify the steep increase in passenger fares. 'The absence of such data undermines the principle of reasoned decision-making as mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution, and renders the order non-speaking and arbitrary in nature,' it said. Mr. Sayeed said that the revised fare structure imposes an undue financial burden on categories of passengers for whom travel constitutes an essential service, especially students and patients. 'Particularly egregious is the complete absence of any concessional or subsidised fare provision for students, who frequently rely on inter-island and mainland transport for educational purposes. This omission stands in stark contradiction to the principles of equity and affirmative protection enshrined under Article 15(4) and Article 21, thereby disproportionately impacting the right to education and access to essential services,' he said.
